After the successful flight, Virgin chief Sir Richard Branson was seen juggling coconuts and spoke to reporters about the event, which he feels marks a "vital breakthrough" (Source: Reuters)

The Virgin Boeing 747 took off from London's Heathrow airport and flew a test flight, fueled partly by Brazilian babassu nuts and coconut biofuel -- the first biofuel flight of a commercial jet (Source: Virgin Atlantic)

Virgin airlines runs first biofuel flight; environmentalists less than thrilled

Quirky Virgin
boss, Sir Richard Branson, claimed the flight was a "vital
breakthrough" to the commercial airline industry. He stated,
"This pioneering flight will enable those of us who are serious about
reducing our carbon emissions to go on developing the fuels of the
future."

Sir Branson stated that he thinks that future won't be in nut fuels like the
one used by the flight, but rather in feedstocks such as algae. He failed
to elaborate what exactly Virgin's algae-powered plane plans were, though he
may have been referring to current
efforts to produce hydrogen with algae.

The flight had one of its four engines connected to the biofuel tank.
This engine relied on the biofuel for 20% of its power, or about 5% of the
total flight power. The other three engines were left powered on
traditional fuel to ensure a safe flight if the biofuel powered-engine
failed. The company said it selected its nuts based on the fact that they
were from mature plantations and were non-competitive with local food
staples. The nuts selected were most commonly used in cosmetics and
household paper products.

While biofuels sound like a development that would be championed by
environmentalists, numerous environmental organizations were less than nuts
about the flight which they labeled a "publicity stunt."
Environmentalists point out that biofuels are currently mechanically and economically not viable, and warn of the possible
negative impact on world food crops.

While Virgin believes that many of its aircraft will be plant-powered within 10
years, skeptics point to biofuel's tendency to freeze at high altitudes, a
possibly catastrophic problem. Kenneth Richter, of Friends of the Earth
blasted the flight as a "gimmick" which he says takes the focus away
from providing "real solutions for climate change."

Richter elaborates, suggesting a different approach,
"If you look at the latest scientific research it clearly shows biofuels
do very little to reduce emissions. At the same time we are very
concerned about the impact of the large-scale increase in biofuel production on
the environment and food prices worldwide. What we need to do is stop
this mad expansion of aviation. At the moment it is the fastest growing source
of greenhouse gases in the UK, and we need to stop subsidizing the
industry."

Greenpeace chief scientist, Dr Doug Parr, believes less air travel is the
answer and labeled Virgin's press release as "high-altitude
greenwash." Dr. Parr states, "Instead of looking for a magic green
bullet, Virgin should focus on the real solution to this problem and call for a
halt to relentless airport expansion."

While Virgin plans to blaze ahead with its biofuels program amid criticism,
Airbus is testing another alternative fuel: a synthetic mix of gas-to-liquid. On February
1, it flew a plane from Filton near Bristol to Toulouse in a three hour test-flight
using the fuel mix. The aircraft used was none
other than the world's largest jumbo jet, the A380. Unlike Virgin,
Airbus has been less vocal about its alternative energy flight program.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No! Well, I didn’t think you would really. Let face it, until certain people in America wake up and realise that different opinions are what make-up a DEMOCRACY and not everyone in the world is a right-wing neo-con, then I guess nobody will be travelling too far anyways (except those in the military of course)

You can slam Green Peace day and night, but compared with the crap you’re doing at the moment I’d STFU:

If I were you, I’d be trying to hunt down the assholes that’ve just spent 3 trillion of your tax dollars and borrowing to date fighting the so-called war on terror!

Think of it this way: 1/6th of that money could have solved all your social security problems for the next 50-60 years?

12 Days of fighting at current costs would pay for your annual charitable contribution to Africa helping the poor and starving?

When Rumsfeld estimated that the war would cost 50-60 billion dollars the person that actually estimated that it would be nearer to 200 billion was fired (Hogwash, he said) – Ha!

Despite the massive amount of war reparations that are being claimed by your government and corporate companies on a daily basis (MacDonald’s - $190,000 WTF?) Most of the world can’t understand what the *?!& you lot are doing there. Would somebody care to explain or even try to justify it?

I’m sorry, but when certain A-Holes get so fired up about Green Peace as they do I think it’s time they ‘got out and about a bit more’

Oh, by the way, don’t come to my country or my country or my country or my country because you’re just not welcome…. Same story wherever you go lately, isn’t it?

Moral of the story here: There is a world outside of America, really there is!

> "1/6th of that money could have solved all your social security problems "

Your figures are far, far afield. The cost of five years of the Iraq War is nearly $500B. Social Security may be as much as $37 trillion in deficit. That's 74X as much by the way, in case you're not good with large numbers.

And just to clarify, that $37T figure isn't even close to total spending on SS -- it's just the anticipated shortfall:

Your "3 trillion figure" is just plain laughable. I think you've gotten a bit confused, possibly in relation to a CBO estimate from last year that, counting the war in Iraq *and* Afghanistan, estimated that total costs for both engagements could range up to $2.4...if we remained on station till 2017....an additional 9+ years.

Fine, but I think I'd believe a Noble Prize winner over your googling and I reckon that most people would be of the same opinion.

Check this out from the BBC Radio 4 program:"The White House originally estimated the Iraq war would cost 50 billion dollars. However, in his new book, the Nobel Prize-winning economist JOSEPH STIGLITZ puts this figure at three trillion dollars and counting. He asks how the government could have underestimated the cost of the war so spectacularly and what price the US and the world is paying for this miscalculation. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, co-written with Linda Bilmes, is published by Allen Lane"

Until you realize that the prize-winner was a high-ranking member of the Clinton Administration, and a huge contributor to Democratic political campaigns. Hardly surprising what he'll write about George Bush, now is it?

His Nobel was for work in asymmetric markets, not exactly a field relevant to the discussion at hand. I'll take the GAO's estimate over his well-timed attempt to influence the 2008 election.

In any case, you've ignored the elephant in the room. Even with Stiglitz' bloated figures, the full cost of the war (much less the 1/6 figure you stated) isn't even a drop in the bucket to total Social Security Spending. Your belief that war spending has in some way affected our options regarding Social Security is flatly incorrect.

I don't know where you get this stuff. Money paid to a US soldier stays in the economy just as much as money paid to a social security recipient. And money given to US firms for new weapons systems drives R&D. Historically, military expenditures have been a far larger economic driver than social security.

In fact, the only dollars which aren't acting to boost the economy are those given directly to Iraq...and most of those are earmarked for construction projects awarded to US firms, so your point is doubly moot.

> "you're paying a soldier money to go over there and fight instead of stay here and build a house, drill for oil, fix cars, etc"

Which is equivalent to paying a welfare recipient to sit on the couch and do nothing. So what's the difference?

> "War is akin to doing nothing. "

Pretty much, yes. But as I said earlier, a large portion of war funding is funnelled into R&D efforts...something that doesn't happen with social spending (barring things like education, of course, which we're not discussing here). That boosts science and technology, and eventually pays dividends.

So while war and social spending are both net losses for a nation, war is less of one. And that flatly contradicts your earlier point.

I didn't think so, your parents wouldn't let you, because they were afraid you would grow some balls. (Yes both boys and girls grow balls in the military, the girls' balls are just invisible. And it makes them far tougher than any civilian, male or female)

The money paid to a soldier is direct deposited into his/her Bank account here in the US. The soldier's spouse uses that money to buy clothes and put a roof over their kids heads.

I suggest you do some research before you start blasting our Boys and Girls over there.

Most of them spend very little money while they are over there. Much less is spent per soldier over there in a 12 month deployment than is spent per person on a one week trip to Mexico.

So if you are wanting to stim the outflow of US dollars to foriegn countries you would be better served by cutting off all recreational travel to foriegn countries for one month during the summer VS anything with our troops.

And social security adds nothing to Society, as that money paid out was taken from this generation of workers minus the overhead of IRS and government handling at all levels which is in the Billions a year. Someone with the correct figure, add it please.

quote: War is akin to doing nothing.

Funny, getting defeated in akin to doing nothing. War is akin to fighting back so you don't get pummeled.

But when we got paid all the money wound up in stateside banks that we couldn't even touch until we got back. Then we spent a good portion by fueling the economy with new car puchases and such.

You obviously don't know so let me clear it up. Even if we didn't go over there troops still get paid and do regular exercises which also cost up money all year round. If we're not at war we're training for war. And don't give me any of this death toll crap because more troops die of motorcycle/automobile accidents than from combat. I know because we got the spiel every holiday.